Gun debate unchanged, misunderstood

In the aftermath of the horrific Sandy Hook shootings, Obama-Biden gun control policies and an impassioned debate, perhaps it would be appropriate to clarify some of the terminology regarding assault weapons. What follows is my letter published by The Advocate almost 17 years ago (1996). It remains relevant.

Assault Weapons

It is regrettable that there is more public emotion than understanding in the ongoing debate about certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons."

A full automatic firearm, like the military M16, will fire continuously while the trigger is depressed, "by a single function of the trigger." A semi-automatic firearm, like the commercial variant AR15, requires a separate trigger pull for each shot.

Many shotguns and rifles, and most handguns, are semi-automatic (the famous "45 automatic" is, in fact, semi automatic).

The public's confusion began with references to a "semi-automatic military assault rifle" - yet there was no such weapon, although the TV newr media often portrayed a full automatic weapon spraying bullets. The first true "assault rifle" was the German Sturmgewehr of 1943, which had a selector button to switch from single shot to full automatic fire in the assault phase of the infantry attack.

Military weapons like the M16 and the Russian AK-47 are true assault rifles; and as "machine-guns" they can be legally purchased under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

It is ironic that while full automatic firearms can be legally purchased with a federal license, some - but not most - semi-automatic firearms were banned (for 10 years) in 1994, primarily because of appearance, rather than mechanical function.

The question of the constitutionality of such a ban aside, the reality is that firearms are produced and employed worldwide, and almost impossible to ban in a free country with porous borders.

One lesson of Prohibition was that if goods cannot be acquired legally, they will be produced and imported illegally. Certainly regulation, like an instant background check at point of purchase to inhibit criminal acquisition, in preferable to criminalizing otherwise law-abiding citizens. Yet statistically, the use of "assault rifles" (and bayonets) in crime is almost non-existent anyway.

Some police officials support the ban. As government agencies, they might find their responsibilities hampered by the constitutional freedoms of the Second Amendment, as well as by other amendments, like protection against unreasonable searches and seizures - which is why the Bill of Rights was created in the first place.

A. Harding Ganz

History, OSU-Newark

Associate Professor Emeritus

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

Gun debate unchanged, misunderstood

In the aftermath of the horrific Sandy Hook shootings, Obama-Biden gun control policies and an impassioned debate, perhaps it would be appropriate to clarify some of the terminology regarding assault